First Interstate Bank of California v Cohen Arnold & Company

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeNourse,Ward L JJ,Sedley J.
Judgment Date28 November 1995
Date28 November 1995
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)

Court of Appeal

Before Lord Justice Nourse, Lord Justice Ward and Mr Justice Sedley

First Interstate Bank of California
and
Cohen Arnold & Co

Negligence - loss of substantial chance - quantum of damages

Damages for loss of substantial chance

In an action for negligence, a plaintiff who was able to prove that the defendant's action had caused him the loss of a chance that was substantial and not merely speculative, was entitled to damages for that loss. The evaluation of that chance was a matter to be taken into account in quantifying the amount of the damages to be awarded.

The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment allowing an appeal by the defendants, Cohen Arnold & Co, chartered accountants, by reducing the amount of the £1.9 million damages that Mr Justice Jacob had in March 1994 ordered them to pay to the plaintiff, First Interstate Bank of California, for the loss of the chance to sell development property in a falling market.

Mr William Crowther, QC and Mr Christopher Gibson for the defendants; Mr Steven Gee, QC and Mr Joseph Smouha for the bank.

LORD JUSTICE NOURSE said that the questions were whether the bank in an action for negligent misstatement was entitled to damages for the loss of a chance and, if so, of what amount.

The bank financed a property transaction in Southwark entered into by Mr Milton Gross, a client of the defendants.

In June 1990 the loan stood at £4.8 million and, owing to market conditions, the bank became anxious and made inquiries to the defendants as to Mr Gross's net worth.

In a letter dated June 22, Mr Michael Barnett, the partner responsible, replied that Mr Gross was considered to be worth in excess of £45 million. The defendants admitted by August 17 that Mr Gross had assets worth no more the £57,000 and that they had been in breach of their duty of care to the bank when writing the letter.

In September the bank started marketing the property, it being eventually sold in lots for a total of £1.4 million.

The judge had found that the bank had relied on the letter until at least August 17 and the probability was that had it known the true position in June it would have enforced its security by marketing the property then and obtaining on the sale an estimated price of £3 million.

The judge recorded the opposing submission made by the defendants that had the true position been known what would have happened to the property was much the same as what did happen.

The judge went on to say that a balance between...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • The Minister for Communications and Others v Figary Watersports Development Company Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 3 Septiembre 2010
    ...WLR 1602 1995 4 AER 907 1996 CLC 153 1955-95 PNLR 701 1995 70 P & CR D14 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA v COHEN ARNOLD & CO (A FIRM) 1996 CLC 174 1996 PNLR 17 NORTH SEA ENERGY HOLDINGS NV v PETROLEUM AUTHORITY OF THAILAND 1999 1 AER (COMM) 173 1999 1 LLOYDS 483 1998 EWCA CIV 1953 PAUL ......
  • Vald. Nielsen Holding A/S v Mr Victor Baldorino
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 18 Julio 2019
    ...what might otherwise be regarded as the true value of the asset: see, for example, First Interstate Bank of California v Cohen Arnold [1996] CLC 174 (CA), and Blue Circle Industries Plc v Ministry of Defence [1999] Ch 289. McGregor on Damages paragraph [10–050] specifically treats the latt......
  • Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 31 Enero 2019
    ...a question of causation, not of quantification (see Vasiliou at [22], and also First Interstate Bank of California v Cohen Arnold & Co [1996] CLC 174 at 182 per Ward LJ, cited in Vasiliou at [43]); but if the claimant does establish that there was such a real and substantial chance, then wh......
  • Wellesley Partners Llp v Withers Llp
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 11 Noviembre 2015
    ...a question of causation, not of quantification (see Vasiliou at [22], and also First Interstate Bank of California v Cohen Arnold & Co [1996] CLC 174 at 182 per Ward LJ, cited in Vasiliou at [43]); but if the claimant does establish that there was such a real and substantial chance, then wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT